Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Share

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  medo on Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:07 pm



    It looks like Russian army is testing two BMP-2 with Berezhok turret.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    BMP-2 with Berezhok turret

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:03 pm

    Hmm, while they look good I hope they don't pour too much into modernizing BMP-2. Berezhok is not that cheap, and BMP-2 frame is getting old.

    Good find.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3193
    Points : 3321
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:11 pm

    Give it some decent add-on armour and its ready to go. Cheaper and makes more sense than introducing more BMP-3s, given that we already have the new family of tracked vehicles on the way that should completely replace BMPs.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:28 pm

    Yes, BMP-3 is nice but very expensive... upgraded BMP-2s raise their performance considerably without costing too much... and if they order enough the price might become more reasonable.

    Excellent photos BTW.

    Am looking forward to see the Kurganets-25... I think I remember reading they were planning to reveal it in 2013...

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  medo on Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:18 pm

    I don't know if BMP-3 production is still going or it was canceled. If it is canceled, that it have sense to modernize BMP-2 with Berezhok turret to have decent day/night BMP capabilities until new Kurganets come into service. New T-90 or T-72BM tanks need BMPs in the same class for proper operational capabilities.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:08 am

    I am pretty sure the BMP-3 is still in production as the UAE are working with the makers on an improvement program.

    I would consider the situation to be very similar to that of the 122mm 2S1, where an otherwise obsolete vehicle that is in service in significant numbers can have an upgrade to make it suitable to improve general performance without too much expense. In fact it is like the T-72 upgrades... cheaper than T-90 upgrades and cheaper than making new T-90s, yet still introducing the core of the useful new stuff like battle management systems and thermal night vision equipment that implements the hunter killer type operational use.

    In fact it is possible that half the BMP-2s will get this upgrade and the other half and the BMP-3s might get the Bakhcha upgrade which consists of the BMP-3M turret. This would retain the firepower balance of the older units where the BMP-1 and BMP-2 were used together so the unit had direct HE firepower with the 73mm gun but also the firepower of an automcannon in 30mm calibre.

    Following the new brigade structure the T-90s and upgraded T-72s and of course the T-80s will be in units with T tank chassis based vehicles like the BTRT and BMPT,and of course the MSTA etc etc.

    The medium brigades will need all BMP and BTR type vehicles etc.

    I would think however that the first priority is upgrades to get all the vehicles night and all weather capable and linked in with the new network and fitted with battle management systems so training can begin properly.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 993
    Points : 1148
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Is the kliver weapons system in service?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:28 am

    This unmanned turret similar to the BTR-82's looks like a good way to modernise its BMP-1s.

    has it been in accepted by the army? If yes are there any BMP-1s in service upgraded with this turret?


    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  Zivo on Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:38 am

    It's the M version that has the Kliver upgrade. If it is in service, it's very elusive, and I've never seen one. There is something like 700 BMP-1s in active service, and the number seems to decrease every year. A significant number of BMP-1's are in reserve, but the state of them is anyone's guess.

    IMO, the BMP-1 is going to be the first to get the chop when Kurganets enters service.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:17 pm

    AFAIK the BMP-2M upgrade or Berezhok upgrade is the upgrade that has been selected, which is the one with a standard BMP-2 turret with a twin Kornet launcher on each side of the turret and a rear turret mounted 30mm grenade launcher that can elevate but is fixed in alignment with the main 30mm cannon.
    It also has the new thermals and panoramic sight for the commander, and appears to me to be the best upgrade for the BMP short of the BMP-3M turret.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  TR1 on Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:23 pm

    Only 700 BMP-1s still left?

    Very, very conservative estimate there. And yes, I am talking about in service ones (full readiness brigades, regular army bases + operational storage depots).

    Upgrading them is pointless though of course.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:37 pm

    There are so few BMP-3s in service that I rather suspect that numbers of BMP-2s will get upgrades. The Berezhok upgrade can also be applied to BMP-1 vehicles, so it is possible that some might get an upgrade but I would think the Kurganets and Boomerang will enter service fairly rapidly.

    I remember reading that there will be a real focus on wheeled vehicles so there will likely be rather more boomerangs than Kurganets as both vehicles will be in the same weight class, both will be amphibious, both will have similar armament and sensors and optics and electronics, but the wheeled Boomerang should be much cheaper to buy and operate because of its wheeled configuration.

    I think I remember seeing the Kliver turret being offered as a pill box fixed setup and also as a naval system for river patrol boats.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  Zivo on Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:38 pm

    I remember looking up the BMP-1 count during S. Ossetian War and the number was more than twice that. But 700 is what I've seen in sources lately. Since there is something like 10k in reserve, the number changes with the political tension.

    In contrast the BMP-2 seems to have much stronger active service numbers, and Berezhok should keep them viable for another decade unless the neighbors rapidly move beyond 25mm and 30mm cannons.

    Honestly though, these IFVs were made for a bygone era. I think the Russian army needs to clean out the garage and make room for the new toys.





    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:55 am

    Not the sort of vehicles you would want to send front line troops into combat in today, but they were built in such numbers in such a wide variety of models for all sorts of different uses.

    They are certainly working on their replacements but until they are ready it makes sense to upgrade a few existing models to improve performance and capabilities, and of course doing a bit of research you could identify potential customers of the upgrades of older vehicles, so when the new vehicles come on line you can sell off the old vehicles with updates and all the tooling and production equipment and maintainence and stores to a country that would find such vehicles useful.

    I think their amphibious is still a useful feature, and with new weapons and sensors they can be potent vehicle in some regions yet. M113s and FV432s are still in use around the place too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    kjasdu
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 11
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Hull Overhang

    Post  kjasdu on Mon May 20, 2013 1:01 pm

    Hello, I was wondering why do so many Russian military tracked vehicles like the MT-LB, BMP, and BMD series have very pronounced front hull overhang? It's my understanding that such feature would be a disadvantage for off-road mobility. The US M114 (pictured) was considered a failure in Vietnam due to, among other things, having a front hull overhang such that it would impale itself on the banks of rice paddies and ditches. Note that the M114 hull overhang is nowhere near as pronounced as the BMP series for example. What makes the Russian designs different in this regard?







    PS. More info on the M114 flaws: www (dot) eaglehorse (dot) org/4_ftx_gunnery/equipment/m114/m114.htm

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  TR1 on Mon May 20, 2013 10:17 pm

    BMPs case- amphibious qualities.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  Zivo on Mon May 20, 2013 11:08 pm

    Amphibious capability mainly.

    You wouldn't need as thick of front armor to stop autocannon fire either due to the slope.

    kjasdu
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 11
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  kjasdu on Tue May 21, 2013 4:49 am

    TR1 wrote:BMPs case- amphibious qualities.
    Zivo wrote:Amphibious capability mainly.
    I understand the need for amphibiousness. But isn't the ability to float depends on object density? As long as the vehicle's density is below 1000Kg/m^3 it should be able to float. The vehicle would also need some kind of propulsion system; it can use its tracks or dedicated waterjets. Is the hull overhang used for hydrodynamic purposes? If so, it would not seem to make much difference since, for example, the latest BMP can go only as fast as 10Km/H on water. Is the slight amphibious mobility gain worth losing an off-road capability? It doesn't make sense, since 90% of the time the vehicle would be on land.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  Zivo on Tue May 21, 2013 6:31 am

    Is the slight amphibious mobility gain worth losing an off-road capability?

    Since it has that type of front I would say the answer is yes.

    It doesn't make sense, since 90% of the time the vehicle would be on land.

    Water crossings are incredibly dangerous and risky. But if Successful, can pay off immensely. Less time in the water means a better chance of crossing a river alive.

    Remember the BMP-1 & 2 were designed for the Cold War. To understand Soviet design decisions requires you take the key Cold War battlefields into account. Europe is crisscrossed by quite a few rivers. Every one of which is a natural barrier that would have provided NATO forces with a clear defensive line to hold back the Soviet offensive.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 21, 2013 11:35 am

    The amphibious capability is for lakes and rivers only, but the real problem or issue is balance.

    Both the BMP-1 and BMP-2 have front mounted engines to allow rear doors for the troops to enter and exit, but by the time the BMP-3 came along the heavy engine and very heavy frontal armour plus the very heavy turret meant the engine could no longer be fitted to the front as it made the vehicle too nose heavy... being able to float is more than just density... it is balance too. The long narrow nose was good for ballistic protection but also for extending forward the weight of the frontal armour to counter the weight of the crew in the rear of the vehicle.

    Being able to just roll into water was an enormous advantage... especially when there are large chunks of ice coming down the river that would smash a temporary bridge....

    The irony is that the Soviets had lots of bad experience in WWII with turret overhangs where enemy soldiers would place charges under them... when ammo was stored in the turret overhangs such demolition charges often destroyed the tanks, which is why post war Soviet tanks shied away from turret bustles...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    kjasdu
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 11
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  kjasdu on Tue May 21, 2013 12:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:The long narrow nose was good for ballistic protection but also for extending forward the weight of the frontal armour to counter the weight of the crew in the rear of the vehicle.

    I don't get it.. the BMP-1 and BMP-2 had front-mounted engine already. Why would they extend forward the weight further by elongating the nose? Wouldn't the vehicle then gets awfully unbalanced especially when the troops dismounts?

    We can see the BMP-3 has considerably lost its hull overhang; at least it's not as pronounced as previous versions. Would it be possible to achieve amphibious performance close to that of BMP-3, let's say for a hypothetical BMP-X, equipped with the same turret, but without any hull overhang?

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1957
    Points : 1964
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  Regular on Tue May 21, 2013 1:40 pm

    Our M113 had trim board that compensated lack of hull overhang. Italians went as far as modernising their M113 into full amphibian.


    Russians had prototypes with very small hull overhang and not to mention new BMP, BMD designs don't suffer from very protruded front

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 22, 2013 4:00 am

    I don't get it.. the BMP-1 and BMP-2 had front-mounted engine already. Why would they extend forward the weight further by elongating the nose? Wouldn't the vehicle then gets awfully unbalanced especially when the troops dismounts?

    By increasing the angle of the front armour you are making it more effective against horizontal fire. You are also creating an empty pocket in the front as well because the engine was not moved forward or changed in shape to fill the new front cavity.

    The change in nose from the BMP-1 to the BMP-2 coincided with the addition of a much larger and much heavier two man turret in the BMP-2, so the extension of the nose becomes a little like the fitting of an outrigger on a canoe that spreads the weight in the water and with the front trim plate deployed stops waves coming up the nose, which would push the nose down as it moves through the water. In later model BMP-2s nose diving started to become an issue with different weight loadings... but the problems were not critical because they tended to use BTRs in the Naval Infantry units that actually landed in surf, while the BMPs were designed for the benign conditions in rivers and lakes.

    The new Kurganets is going to be developed into a customised naval branch with rough sea capability and external propellers to be used by the Naval Infantry.

    Would it be possible to achieve amphibious performance close to that of BMP-3, let's say for a hypothetical BMP-X, equipped with the same turret, but without any hull overhang?

    Probably, but I can't actually see the Russians abandoning the angled front armour plate. BTW angled plates make a lot of sense... the V shaped hulls of anti mine vehicles are designed to redirect the blast of explosions under the vehicle to the side rather than a flat bottom that would concentrate the force through the vehicle and its occupants.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    kjasdu
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 11
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  kjasdu on Wed May 22, 2013 8:57 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The change in nose from the BMP-1 to the BMP-2 coincided with the addition of a much larger and much heavier two man turret in the BMP-2, so the extension of the nose becomes a little like the fitting of an outrigger on a canoe that spreads the weight in the water and with the front trim plate deployed stops waves coming up the nose, which would push the nose down as it moves through the water.

    Thanks Garry, that does make sense.

    GarryB wrote:
    Probably, but I can't actually see the Russians abandoning the angled front armour plate. BTW angled plates make a lot of sense... the V shaped hulls of anti mine vehicles are designed to redirect the blast of explosions under the vehicle to the side rather than a flat bottom that would concentrate the force through the vehicle and its occupants.

    I'm not suggesting abandoning angled front armor plate. I don't think there are any modern AFVs without angled/sloped front armor. Even the M113, which is about as close as you can get to a mobile pillbox, has a 45 degrees angled front.

    On a somewhat related note, I don't get what the obsession is with V-shaped bottom hulls. It complicates the design and makes the vehicle unnecessary taller. Tracks lets you go off-road, not on-road/trail where you are being predictable and susceptible to road bombs and IEDs. Sure, sometimes you must go on roads, but the majority of these attacks were made during patrols, and you don't patrol areas you do not control, it's suicide.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  TR1 on Wed May 22, 2013 9:49 am

    Mind you BMP-3 has a more advanced amphibious system than BMP-1, so the boat like hull does not need to be as pronounced.

    Don't worry about V-hull, it is not a serious method of mine protection for things like IFVs and tanks. You would end up with a vehicle seriously compromised in every other parameter.
    Imagine a tracked vehicle with sharp V-hull, the thing would have absurdly tall tracks Very Happy

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 993
    Points : 1148
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed May 22, 2013 3:04 pm

    TR1 wrote:Mind you BMP-3 has a more advanced amphibious system than BMP-1, so the boat like hull does not need to be as pronounced.

    Don't worry about V-hull, it is not a serious method of mine protection for things like IFVs and tanks. You would end up with a vehicle seriously compromised in every other parameter.
    Imagine a tracked vehicle with sharp V-hull, the thing would have absurdly tall tracks Very Happy
    The M60 patton and challenger tanks dboth have V-hulls and their performance isn't hampered because of that. Are there any Russian AFVs ever built with a V-hull?

    Sponsored content

    Re: BMP-1/BMP-2 Upgrades and Variants

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:01 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:01 am